Truly I say to you, Amen I say to you, Inferences from a Gospel manner of speech

by kepler 51 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  kepler

  Having had some time to reflect on my earlier suggestion about Luke 21:32, that “this generation could be placed in “truly I tell you” clause - I don’t think it would work. So far as I can tell, it would have to be an indirect objec with the appropriate inflectiont, unless someone can think of something equivalent to the Latin vocative. Were that the case, it would have been noticed by now. But let’s take a look at it anyway.

  NJB: “In truth I tell you, before this generation has passed away all will have taken place.”

  Not an exact transliteral, phonetic rendering of the Greek:

  Amin lego imti oti ou mi paralethi i genea avti pareleisontai.

  -----

  Slimboyfat has offered another example of Luke's writing which uses “simeron”- this day or today.

  Acts 20:26

  “Therefore I declare to you this day that I am not responsible for the blood of any of you.”

  Dioti martiromai imin en ti simeron imeraoti katharos eimi apo tou aimatos.

  Notice that “simeron” and “imera” appear side by side, strong numbers 4594 and 2250 respectively. They are “today” and “day”.

  Like it has been said about Freudian psychology, sometimes a train going into a tunnel is a train going into a tunnel. In this case we have Paul testifying what he is going to do on this day. I don't think it would make any sense for him to say at the end of the day he was going to declare - unless he was running for political office in this country. But nontheless, "today the day" structure tells us something about what an oath or declaration should look like, no?

  To be literal minded about translation it could be said, “I declare to you today, this day,…” And if Luke had intended to write in Greek Jesus’s declaration on the cross in the same manner, had it been spoken in Aramaic or not, I've got firm ground to say that he would express such a thing in the same manner.

  Luke does use the word “cimeron” ( I think of westerns like “Cimarron”) in about 8 other verses in Acts and 11 times in the Gospel. I think most of the cases are simply statements of fact, but some are related to time limits such as I argue for in the case on the cross.

  Luke 22:34: I say to you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, before you deny me three times.

  Luke 22:61 Before the cock crows today,

  These are complex expressions to transliterate, but it is clear that the redundant “imera” is absent.

  Bobcat,

  Yes, I do think it strange that Gospel writers use the expression regularly and the writer of Revelations does not use it at all. Yet each is recording the words of Jesus Christ. Admittedly, the Gospel speech of Jesus in resurrection does not resort to these expression, but what is included in these encounters is very brief. And so far I haven't found any quote among the epistles related to this manner of speech either.

  About Revelations, the current exercise with "Truly I say to you..." is illustrative of many other differences in vocabulary and perspective between this book and the Gospel of St. John. For this topic I will leave it at that.
• 

  Bobcat

  Kepler:

  Admittedly, the Gospel speech of Jesus in resurrection does not resort to these expression, but what is included in these encounters is very brief.

  Your right that Revelation doesn't provide alot of Jesus' own discourse with which to make an extensive comparison. So any comparison is limited by that. (Now I'm curious about after his ressurrection, but before his ascension to heaven - an even briefer time frame.)

  At any rate, thanks for bringing the topic up. Your initial analysis prompted a good bit of brainstorming and gathering of info into one place. I also enjoyed the civility of the discussion.

  Take Care
• 

  slimboyfat

  I just noticed in Bentley Layton's Coptic Grammar he translates the Coptic of Luke 23:43 as "Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise." (That's on page 420) I don't understand Coptic well enough to follow it closely on this point, but presumably if Layton translates it that way it must be the most straightforward meaning of the verse as it was translated into that ancient language.

  The NWT has more support on this verse than I had previously imagined.
• 

  King Solomon

  I've always suspected that the thief being 'saved' at the last minute was added to the narrative as an example of the parable of the 'workers in the vineyard' (which only appears in ONE of the Gospels, Matthew):

  According to Matthew 20:1–16 Jesus says that any "laborer" who accepts the invitation to the work in the vineyard (said by Jesus to represent the Kingdom of Heaven), no matter how late in the day, will receive an equal reward with those who have been faithful the longest.

  The owner of the vineyard (Jesus) decides to pay a late-coming worker (the criminal) a full day's wages, just the same as those workers (his disciples) who actually put in a full day's of labor.

  In that light, the whole temporal aspect (whether the criminal would be rewarded TODAY, or the promise was MADE that day) becomes rather meaningless, as it misses the whole POINT of the passage: confirmation of the prior parable that it's never too late to repent and be saved, with the reward being the same as someone who did so earlier in their life.

  ---

  Leo, since the parable appears in Matthew, and the repentent thief account ONLY appears in the Luke narrative, is there any evidence to suggest that this element was added to reinforce the parable?
• 

  kepler

  Slimboyfat,

  Your post caught me on line while I was looking at other developments. As a result started looking at some of the sources to which you refer.

  Admittedly, for me this is a difficult one to confirm or deny. I have not been looking at Coptic or have any near term plans to get acquainted with it. But all the same, I don't think Layton Bentley's (or Bentley Layton's ?)sample translation makes a compelling case.

  To recap, we had looked at 70 or 80 cases of "truly I say to you", etc. throughout the Greek NT. Then you added another example from Acts 20:26 where "today" and "day" were used together in a construction that would convey exactly what it is supposed would be conveyed to the "good thief" - if the case were a sworn testimony as it was in the case Paul in Acts. To be clear, the Acts version of the statement had simeron and imera, the good thief version had only simeron.

  Looking up the nature of the Coptic under discussion, it is described as " a reference tool for students of the classical dialect of Sahidic which was used in literary texts between the 4th and 8th centuries". In an 5 page review of the grammar,

  Layton, Bentley A Coptic Grammar - Review of ... www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4325_4307.pdf

  The second edition of Bentley Layton's Coptic Grammar is highly recommended for students of Egyptology, Coptology, early Christian history, and textual ...

  - even though the book is praised as being of great help to students, there are also provided a string of "caveat emptors". So far as I can tell, about practically everything the author has devised.

  In the review the closest thing I can find to a summary of this view is the following:

  Setting aside broader problems associated with the parts-of-speech model and the

  ordination of clauses, Layton’s categories seem to work rather well; at the very least,

  most of them are a “useful fiction” that, even if they do not map the territory of Sahidic

  Coptic properly, indicate what the territory is and that it should be mapped. Indeed,

  Coptic Grammar offers in one volume most all of the recent advances in Coptology, so

  that the reader is presented with a linguistic theory whose whole is, perhaps, more

  significant than its parts.

  The recent interest in Coptic has been as a result of finding the Nag Hamadi manuscripts and some first cut translations thereof of so-called Gnostic Gospels. Sometime ago I ran into one enthusiast of the subject wondering what would happen if the one or two renown experts got run over by buses on the way to work. Would we still be reliant on their findings of what these texts supposedly said or could novices pick up from there? "Picking up from there?" Your citation illustrates what he was talking about.

  In short, it is hard for me to understand how Coptic texts that are not well understood will give us insight into Greek texts that have been around continuously. Greeks themselves seem never to have had an underlying suspicion about what Luke 23:43 said. The description of the Coptic in question is later than extant Greek manuscripts. Whether Coptics of this school viewed those words the same way as the WTBTS does - or that is simply a conclusion of Bentley based on his developing grammatical principles - that would be another investigation, perhaps that has been discussed some already.

  But you will also have to tell us about the intensive study that the translation department in Brooklyn has been doing on decyphering Coptic manuscripts - and drawing conclusions from them. That should be interesting too.
• 

  slimboyfat

  On page xii (of the third edition, 2011) Layton says that his grammar does not deal with Coptic used in the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, which is in many ways distinctive, but instead he focusses on the "Bible, the Shenoute corpus, and other ecclesiastical literature". So his grammar is definitely inteneded to be used for the language found in the Sahidic version of the New Testament, that is its primary function.

  The reason the early versions of the NT are relevant here is that there is an ambiguity in the original Greek that forces tranlators into some other languages to decide which meaning is intended. If both the early Syriac and Coptic translators decided that the passage meant Jesus was speaking "today" rather than that he would be in paradise "today" then that is a significant indication as to how the passage was understood by early Christians.
• 

  kepler

  OK, we have an entry for the Coptic; unknown compiler, grammar or syntax ...?

  Here's one for Latin: compiler Jerome, in contact with contemporary Greeks; text, Vulgate.

  23:43 et dixit illi Iesus amen dico tibi hodie mecum eris in paradiso.

  My high school latin is rusty, but I understand the vocabulary and grammar perfectly. I presume someone will argue that the Vulgate was corrupted and as a result the original text MUST have been something to the contrary. But the example from Acts 20:26, in this case

  quapropter contestor vos hodierna die quia mundus sum a sanguine omnium

  presumed to the contrary, makes it look like "case closed" to me.
• 

  slimboyfat

  There is evidence on both sides, I would hardly say case closed.

  I think the NWT has a stronger case for its reading than I realised before this thread.
• 

  Bobcat

  Kepler:

  [Luke] 23:43 et dixit illi Iesus amen dico tibi hodie mecum eris in paradiso.

  Acts 20:26, . . . quapropter contestor vos hodierna die quia mundus sum a sanguine omnium

  How do these verses read when translated from the Latin into English? (If you don't mind me asking)

  (If your Latin is rusty, mine is non-existent)

  Thank you and Take Care
• 

  kepler

  [Luke] 23:43 et dixit illi Iesus amen dico tibi hodie mecum eris in paradiso.

  Acts 20:26, . . . quapropter contestor vos hodierna die quia mundus sum a sanguine omnium

  How do these verses read when translated from the Latin into English? (If you don't mind me asking)

  (If your Latin is rusty, mine is non-existent)

  Bobcat,

  The first one is easier than the second. Very literal:

  "and he said that Jesus Amen I say to you today with me you will be in paradise."

  The second one is tougher ( for me, at any rate), more idiomatic:

  "Wherefore to call witness you today [this] day I am clean by blood of all..."

  A rendering in English NJB:

  "And so on this very day I swear that my conscience is clear..."

  Though "conscience" and "blood" seem like an idiomatic transformation, there is also that double "today, this day" construction that was characteristic of the Greek oath as well. "Conscience", I suspect, is an evolved word of a millenium or so later. While the verb is of passive infinitive form, the pronoun "vos" is probably accusative. My situational awareness with inflected languages since high school has been mostly with Russian - and I don't think I ever had enough data from Latin homework decades back. Passive "deponent" verbs, yes; but acusative pronouns attached - does not compute.